Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cog (advertisement)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:12, 13 March 2010.

Cog (advertisement)

 * Nominator(s): GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured status because the article is the most comprehensive resource on the topic anywhere, online or off. Cog is one of the most influential television advertising campaigns of the past decade, and still holds the title of "most-awarded commercial ever." I've been wanting to work on the article since getting noitulovE promoted a couple of years back, and I'm anxious to get any feedback on the results. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. No dab links. External links appear mostly fine, but has some funny code at the bottom and gives a 500 code. Alt text good for the one image (wouldn't an image of the ad itself be justifiable as fair use?). Ucucha 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did add an image to the infobox, but to be honest, the nature of the ad doesn't lend itself well to getting a good representative shot. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I tagged it with CSD F5 (and you deleted it, I now see&mdash;but F5 requires that an image be tagged for seven days first, which is why I didn't just delete it myself). It's your judgment as the main author, but it seems that the piece shown in the image is perhaps the most recognized part of the spot and therefore the piece that could best be included. Ucucha 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think this is rather awkwardly written in parts, such as "Because Cog was to be produced with a minimum of computer-generated imagery work, the majority of the four-month production schedule was set aside for getting the exact positioning of the components worked out." This is the first we're told that computer imagery was to be avoided, and with no explanation as to why. "Majority" isn't the right word here either.


 * It also has an inappropriately tabloid newspaper feel to it in places, such as "The exacting nature of the testing and the pressure of the schedule took its toll on the crew. Some workers went days without sleep. Others reported having bad dreams about the spare car parts." Poor diddums. I can't make sense of some sections either. For instance, what does "Filming session lasted seven hours, and the work was exacting" mean? "In all, 606 takes were needed to complete Cog,[2] of which 70–80 were performed in the four days of filming." So when were the other takes done? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redacted the problem sentences. The rest of the takes were performed during the testing phase. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 10:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. An image would greatly increase understanding of the article methinks. Cavie78 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/2110.asp
 * http://www.mad.co.uk (needs to note it's sub only also)
 * www.adforum.com/cog/cog_interview.asp
 * http://www.boardsmag.com
 * http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_practical_motion/
 * Current ref 14 is just a bare url, needs formatting to match the others.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Boards and The Advertising Forum are trade journals for the advertising community, though the print arm of the latter has folded and it's online-only these days.
 * Millimeter (digitalcontentproducer) and iMedia Creative are professionally produced publications, with all content peer reviewed by industry experts.
 * The mad.co.uk link was just making available an article in the Creative Review. Since it's no longer freely available there, I've switched to a dead-tree-only format.
 * Bare ref was added recently by someone else, I've formatted it appropriately now. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 19:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'll matter much at this stage - no-one seems to have much positive to say about the article. Still, it's received more attention since the nomination than it's had in the past six months, so it's not been a total wash :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 19:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.